In this link https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/kafka-the-definitive/9781491936153/ch04.html the section entitled, "Consuming Records with Specific Offsets" makes reference to a strategy of effectively updating the topic partition offsets in an external store "as you go", and then on partition revocation (e.g. a re-balancing) simply commit any interrupted transaction to the external store.
Now, I'm assuming that this strategy means that in the partition revocation callback that I don't need to process the passed-in TopicPartition collection for the offsets as any "in progress" transaction that was interrupted will be persisted and will contain the partition offsets that need to be committed/saved.
(If I'm wrong on this, please correct me.)
So, then, given that this is Spring Kafka and I'm making use of an #Transactional service to persist the necessary data, is the above strategy relevant/doable? In other words, I'm unsure of how I'd resume/commit anything marked as #Transactional since the transaction manager, boundary, etc. is all taken care of under the hood.
Is this even an issue? If so, what would be the best way to achieve this strategy? Manually track transactions (which sounds horrible across methods and callbacks)?
Or should I just go through the TopicPartition collection on partition revocation and update the partition offsets anyway?
Hopefully this makes sense as I'd like to make sure I get this right.
Thanks in advance.
Released September 2017
That book is quite old in Kafka terms; with modern versions; keeping the offsets in Kafka is much simpler; just make sure your consumer can process all the records returned by a poll() within max.poll.interval.ms in order to avoid a rebalance altogether.
Related
I have been starting to make greater use of the message data feature of masstransit and am getting to the point needing to manage the message data in the store - i.e. remove old data.
The obvious choice is to have some outside process tidy up data, but clearly a scheduled (or not) clean up could remove data still in use or referenced by error or dead letter queues.
Ideally I would like to limit stored message data retention to messages only in error or dead letter queues, and automatically remove data for messages that have been successfully processed.
What would be the best approach to achieve this with MassTransit? Perhaps with a MiddleWare approach or similar, and if that is the case what is the correct approach?
Manual cleanup is recommended, using whatever makes sense for the repository in use. Because messages may still be in queues, or in error/dead-letter queues as you pointed out, it is really up to development/operations team to know when the right time is to remove older message data.
I'd suggest monitoring and managing the error/dead-letter queues more aggressively, keeping them empty. And then, just figure a good timeframe to delete old message data - one week, ten days, whatever - and deal with it that way.
I have had a backlog item to come up with a way to automatically manage message data, but since message data can be forwarded (using the same stored data) either via publish or send, there is no good way to track references.
We use Kafka topics as both events and a repository. Using the kafka-streams API we define a simple K-Table that represents all the events in the topic.
In our use case we publish events to the topic and subsequently reference the K-Table as the backing repository. The main issue is that the published events are not immediately visible on the K-Table.
We tried transactions and exactly once semantics as described here (https://kafka.apache.org/26/documentation/streams/core-concepts#streams_processing_guarantee) but there is always a delay we cannot control.
Publish Event
Undetermined amount of time
Published Event is visible in the K-Table
Is there a way to eliminate the delay or otherwise know that a specific event has been consumed by the K-Table.
NOTE: We tried both partition and global tables with similar results.
Thanks
Because Kafka is an asynchronous system the observed delay is expected and you cannot do anything to avoid it.
However, if you publish a message to a topic, the KafkaProducer allows you to pass in a Callback to the send() method and the callback will be executed after the message was written to the topic providing the record's metadata like topic, partition, and offset.
After Kafka Streams processed messages, it will eventually commit the offsets (you can configure the commit interval, too). Thus, you can know if the message is in the KTable after the offset was committed. By default, committing happens every 30 seconds only and it's not recommended to use a very short commit interval because it implies large overhead. Thus, I am not sure if this would help for your case, as it seem you want a more timely "response".
As an alternative, you can also disable caching on the KTable and use a toStream().process() step -- after each update to the KTable, the changelog stream provided by toStream() will contain the record and you can access the record metadata (including its offset) in the Processor via the given ProcessorContext object. Thus should also allow you to figure out, when the record is available in the KTable.
A system is being implemented using microservices. In order to decrease interactions between microservices implemented "at the same level" in an architecture, some microservices will locally cache copies of tables managed by other services. The assumption is that the locally cached table (a) is frequently accessed in a "read mode" by the microservice, and (b) has relatively static content (i.e., more of a "lookup table" vice a transactional content).
The local caches will maintain synch using inter-service messaging. As the content should be fairly static, this should not be a significant issue/workload. However, on startup of a microservice, there is a possibility that the local cache has gone stale.
I'd like to implement some sort of rolling revision number on the source table, so that microservices with local caches can check this revision number to potentially avoid a re-synch event.
Is there a "best practice" to this approach? Or, a "better alternative", given that each microservice is backed by it's own database (i.e., no shared database)?
In my opinion you shouldn't be loading the data at start up. It might be bit complicated to maintain version.
Cache-Aside Pattern
Generally in microservices architecture you consider "cache-aside pattern". You don't build the cache at front but on demand. When you get a request you check the cache , if it's not there you update the cache with latest value and return response, from there it's always returned from cache. The benefit is you don't need to load everything at front. Say you have 200 records, while services are only using 50 of them frequently , you are maintaining the extra cache that may not be required.
Let the requests build the cache , it's the one time DB hit . You can set the expiry on cache and incoming request build it again.
If you have data which is totally static (never ever change) then this pattern may not be worth a discussion , but if you have a lookup table that can change even once a week, month, then you should be using this pattern with longer cache expiration time. Maintaining the version could be costly. But really upto you how you may want to implement.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/cache-aside
We ran into this same issue and have temporarily solved it by using a LastUpdated timestamp comparison (same concept as your VersionNumber). Every night (when our application tends to be slow) each service publishes a ServiceXLastUpdated message that includes the most recent timestamp when the data it owns was added/edited. Any other service that subscribes to this data processes the message and if there's a mismatch it requests all rows "touched" since it's last local update so that it can get back in sync.
For us, for now, this is okay as new services don't tend to come online and be in use same day. But, our plan going forward is that any time a service starts up, it can publish a message for each subscribed service indicating it's most recent cache update timestamp. If a "source" service sees the timestamp is not current, it can send updates to re-sync the data. This has the advantage of only sending the needed updates to the specific service(s) that need it even though (at least for us) all services subscribed have access to the messages.
We started with using persistent Queues so if all instances of a Microservice were down, the messages would just build up in it's queue. There are 2 issues with this that led us to build something better:
1) It obviously doesn't solve the "first startup" scenario as there is no queue for messages to build up in
2) If ANYTHING goes wrong either in storing queued messages or processing them, you end up out of sync. If that happens, you still need a proactive mechanism like we have now to bring things back in sync. So, it seemed worth going this route
I wouldn't say our method is a "best practice" and if there is one I'm not aware of it. But, the way we're doing it (including planned future work) has so far proven simple to build, easy to understand and monitor, and robust in that it's extremely rare we get an event caused by out-of-sync local data.
I have a persistent actor which receives many messages. Fist message is CREATE (case class) and next messages are UPDATEs (case classes). So if it receives CREATE then it should not go into persistence to run recovery because the storage is empty for this actor. It's performance wasting from my perspective.
Is there any possibility to do not call recovery for particular input message (the first one which is CREATE), please?
A persistent actor will always have to hit the database, because there is no other way to know whether it having existed before - it could have been created in a previous instance of the application that was stopped or it could have been created on a different node in a cluster.
In general a good pattern for performance is to keep the actor in memory after it has been hit the first time, as that will allow as fast responses as possible. The most common way to do this is using Cluster Sharding (which you can read more about in the docs here: https://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/cluster-sharding.html?language=scala#cluster-sharding
I have never heard of anyone seeing the hit for an empty persistent actor as a performance problem and I'm not sure it is possible to solve that in a general way, so if you have such a problem and somehow can know the actor was never created before you can not do that with Akka Persistence but would have to build a special solution for that yourself.
Since a couple of days I've been trying to figure it out how to inform to the rest of the microservices that a new entity was created in a microservice A that store that entity in a MongoDB.
I want to:
Have low coupling between the microservices
Avoid distributed transactions between microservices like Two Phase Commit (2PC)
At first a message broker like RabbitMQ seems to be a good tool for the job but then I see the problem of commit the new document in MongoDB and publish the message in the broker not being atomic.
Why event sourcing? by eventuate.io:
One way of solving this issue implies make the schema of the documents a bit dirtier by adding a mark that says if the document have been published in the broker and having a scheduled background process that search unpublished documents in MongoDB and publishes those to the broker using confirmations, when the confirmation arrives the document will be marked as published (using at-least-once and idempotency semantics). This solutions is proposed in this and this answers.
Reading an Introduction to Microservices by Chris Richardson I ended up in this great presentation of Developing functional domain models with event sourcing where one of the slides asked:
How to atomically update the database and publish events and publish events without 2PC? (dual write problem).
The answer is simple (on the next slide)
Update the database and publish events
This is a different approach to this one that is based on CQRS a la Greg Young.
The domain repository is responsible for publishing the events, this
would normally be inside a single transaction together with storing
the events in the event store.
I think that delegate the responsabilities of storing and publishing the events to the event store is a good thing because avoids the need of 2PC or a background process.
However, in a certain way it's true that:
If you rely on the event store to publish the events you'd have a
tight coupling to the storage mechanism.
But we could say the same if we adopt a message broker for intecommunicate the microservices.
The thing that worries me more is that the Event Store seems to become a Single Point of Failure.
If we look this example from eventuate.io
we can see that if the event store is down, we can't create accounts or money transfers, losing one of the advantages of microservices. (although the system will continue responding querys).
So, it's correct to affirmate that the Event Store as used in the eventuate example is a Single Point of Failure?
What you are facing is an instance of the Two General's Problem. Basically, you want to have two entities on a network agreeing on something but the network is not fail safe. Leslie Lamport proved that this is impossible.
So no matter how much you add new entities to your network, the message queue being one, you will never have 100% certainty that agreement will be reached. In fact, the opposite takes place: the more entities you add to your distributed system, the less you can be certain that an agreement will eventually be reached.
A practical answer to your case is that 2PC is not that bad if you consider adding even more complexity and single points of failures. If you absolutely do not want a single point of failure and wants to assume that the network is reliable (in other words, that the network itself cannot be a single point of failure), you can try a P2P algorithm such as DHT, but for two peers I bet it reduces to simple 2PC.
We handle this with the Outbox approach in NServiceBus:
http://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/outbox/
This approach requires that the initial trigger for the whole operation came in as a message on the queue but works very well.
You could also create a flag for each entry inside of the event store which tells if this event was already published. Another process could poll the event store for those unpublished events and put them into a message queue or topic. The disadvantage of this approach is that consumers of this queue or topic must be designed to de-duplicate incoming messages because this pattern does only guarantee at-least-once delivery. Another disadvantage could be latency because of the polling frequency. But since we have already entered the eventually consistent area here this might not be such a big concern.
How about if we have two event stores, and whenever a Domain Event is created, it is queued onto both of them. And the event handler on the query side, handles events popped from both the event stores.
Ofcourse every event should be idempotent.
But wouldn’t this solve our problem of the event store being a single point of entry?
Not particularly a mongodb solution but have you considered leveraging the Streams feature introduced in Redis 5 to implement a reliable event store. Take a look this intro here
I find that it has rich set of features like message tailing, message acknowledgement as well as the ability to extract unacknowledged messages easily. This surely helps to implement at least once messaging guarantees. It also support load balancing of messages using "consumer group" concept which can help with scaling the processing part.
Regarding your concern about being the single point of failure, as per the documentation, streams and consumer information can be replicated across nodes and persisted to disk (using regular Redis mechanisms I believe). This helps address the single point of failure issue. I'm currently considering using this for one of my microservices projects.